January 3, 2023

Click here to subscribe to the Daily Media Update.

This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].

Nonprofits

New York Times: A Charity Tied to the Supreme Court Offers Donors Access to the Justices

By Jo Becker and Julie Tate

.....[The Supreme Court Historical Society] has raised more than $23 million over the last two decades. Because of its nonprofit status, it does not have to publicly disclose its donors — and declined when asked to do so. But The New York Times was able to identify the sources behind more than $10.7 million raised since 2003, the first year for which relevant records were available.

At least $6.4 million — or 60 percent — came from corporations, special interest groups, or lawyers and firms that argued cases before the court, according to an analysis of archived historical society newsletters and publicly available records that detail grants given to the society by foundations. Of that, at least $4.7 million came from individuals or entities in years when they had an interest in a pending federal court case on appeal or at the high court, records show.

The Courts

Reason ("Volokh Conpsiracy"): Ninth Circuit Judge Urges Supreme Court "Not to Give Any First Amendment Protection for Racist Hate Speech"

By Eugene Volokh

.....“[G]overnment officials ... should not be unduly constrained in their attempts to regulate hate speech for the purpose of protecting the intended targets of said speech. This may require some refining of the Supreme Court’s prior guidance in its precedents.... For example, the Court could consider modifying the Brandenburg test to require only a probable and emerging threat of violence rather than imminent lawless action as a result of speech in order to regulate it.”

Congress

Fox News: Sen. Cardin: If you 'espouse hate,' you're 'not protected' by the First Amendment

By Lindsay Kornick

.....Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., sent shockwaves on social media on Wednesday, during a Senate committee hearing, for claiming that if you "espouse hate," you may not have First Amendment protections.

Cardin brought up First Amendment protections during closing statements on ways to regulate speech on the internet through both the private sector and the government.

"It is incredibly valuable part of our fabric and can be used for good, and we know that it can be used for bad. I admire your desire for the private sector to do what’s right. We do hope that’s the case, but I do think there’s a role for government consistent with our First Amendment. For us establishing parameters, if you espouse hate, if you espouse violence, you're not protected under the First Amendment," Cardin said.

He added, "I think we can be more aggressive in the way that we handle that type of use of the internet. We know that Europe has done things, I think we have to learn things from each other. I hope we can figure out the strategy that we need everybody united on it."

Cardin’s comments saw intense backlash for calling for limitations to speech based on "espousing hate."

DOJ

New York Times: Republicans Step Up Attacks on F.B.I. as It Investigates Trump

By Adam Goldman and Alan Feuer

.....In a letter sent [last] month to Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. director, the group surfaced persistent accusations against the bureau, saying it had discriminated against conservative-leaning agents. The group’s letter also falsely suggested that Mr. Piro, who once ran the F.B.I.’s office in Miami, had played a suspicious role in the bureau’s search this summer of Mar-a-Lago, former President Donald J. Trump’s private club and residence in Florida…

Representative Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who will be the Judiciary Committee’s chairman [this] month, has pledged to investigate what he describes as the politicization of the F.B.I. as well as that of the Justice Department. In a taste of what is to come, the committee’s Republican staff released a 1,000-page report last month that asserted that the F.B.I. hierarchy “spied on President Trump’s campaign and ridiculed conservative Americans” and that the “rot within the F.B.I. festers in and proceeds from Washington.”

Online Speech Platforms

Washington Post: Shadowbanning is real: Here’s how you end up muted by social media

By Geoffrey A. Fowler

.....Art teacher Jennifer Bloomer has used Instagram to share activism-themed artwork and announce classes for eight years. Then last fall, while trying to promote a class called “Raising anti-racist kids through art,” her online megaphone stopped working.

It’s not that her account got suspended. Rather, she started to notice her likes dwindled and the number of people seeing her posts dropped by as much as 90 percent, according to her Instagram dashboard.

Bloomer, it appears, had been “shadowbanned,” a form of online censorship where you’re still allowed to speak, but hardly anyone gets to hear you. Even more maddening, no one tells you it’s happening.

Candidates and Campaigns

New York Times: Santos, a Suburban House and $11,000 in Campaign Payments for ‘Rent’

By Grace Ashford and Dana Rubinstein

.....Mr. Santos’s campaign filings show other irregularities as well: He had listed a flood of expenses under $200 — more than 800 items in total — a number that far exceeded those of candidates for similar office. More than 30 of those payments came in just below the limit at $199.99, expenses listed for office supplies, restaurants and Ubers, among other things. While F.E.C. rules urge candidates to try to save receipts for purchases below $200, they are required to keep them for all expenditures above that threshold.

Paul S. Ryan, an election law expert, said that the expenditures could be an effort to hide illegal use of campaign funds, given the leeway with reporting receipts below $200. If so, he said, Mr. Santos’s attempt to hide the pattern could put him in further legal trouble, adding: “I consider deployment of this tactic strong evidence that the violation of law was knowing and willful — and therefore meeting the requirement for criminal prosecution.”

The States

Cowboy State Daily: Legislation Would Close Wyoming Campaign Finance Loophole That Lets Fed PACs Not Report

By Leo Wolfson

.....A bill will be considered in the Legislature’s upcoming 2023 session that would tighten campaign contribution laws in Wyoming.

Senate File 40, sponsored by state Sens. Cale Case, R-Lander, Brian Boner, R-Douglas, Tara Nethercott and Dan Zwonitzer, both R-Cheyenne, in many ways takes a roundabout approach to peeling the fruit it intends to consume.

The legislation clarifies that federal political action committees are not required to file state contribution and expenditure reports if the contributions and expenditures of the PAC are exclusively related to federal candidates or issues.

Noticeably absent from the bill is how it would address federal PACs that also are involved in state-level elections.

By leaving this out, the legislation indirectly asserts that any PAC participating in state-level campaign activity in Wyoming must file with the state.

Case said that’s not specifically spelled out on purpose.

“The rules have to be the same for everybody,” he said. “We’re just trying to close the loopholes that prevent us from stopping people trying to get around state reporting.”

Boner said he sees SF 40 simply as bringing increased transparency to Wyoming’s elections.

“If you’re spending money in the state’s elections you need to disclose it,” Boner said.

New York Post: Ritchie Torres’ George Santos bill would make NY candidate lies a crime

By Nolan Hicks

.....Democratic Bronx Rep. Ritchie Torres is set to introduce legislation that would make it illegal for Congressional hopefuls to lie about their biographies as outrage grows over the unraveling of Congressman-elect George Santos’ life story.

The bill would make it illegal for candidates to “defraud” voters by providing false information about their education, past employment or military service. Those details would be required to be part of the disclosures candidates already must make to run for office...

Providing incorrect information would be a prosecutable offense that could be punished with a $100,000 fine or up to a year in prison...

“Fraud is all about misleading people with words and people have been able to sue for fraud for generations,” said Donna Lieberman, the head of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “If you’re talking about ethics and government, the alarm has been going off for years.”

However, she added: “The point is well taken that when you’re dealing with political speech, you have to worry about if regulations are an invitation to censorship and abuse by whichever party is in charge.”

Read an article you think we would be interested in? Send it to Tiffany Donnelly at [email protected]. For email filters, the subject of this email will always begin with "Institute for Free Speech Media Update."

The Institute for Free Speech is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that promotes and defends the First Amendment rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government. Please support the Institute's mission by clicking here. For further information, visit www.ifs.org.

Follow the Institute for Free Speech